In a collection of Einsteins quotes is the shocking confession "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a lot of errors in Einstein's math. If he knew the answer already, did he get it from someone else and then fake the calculations?
Einstein's 23 Biggest Mistakes | Einstein | DISCOVER Magazine
1905 Mistake in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity
1905 Failure to consider Michelson-Morley experiment
1905 Mistake in transverse mass of high-speed particles
1905 Multiple mistakes in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of liquids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules
1905 Mistakes in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light
1905 Mistake in the first proof of E = mc2
1906 Mistakes in the second, third, and fourth proofs of E = mc2
1907 Mistake in the synchronization procedure for accelerated clocks
1907 Mistakes in the Principle of Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration
1911 Mistake in the first calculation of the bending of light
1913 Mistake in the first attempt at a theory of general relativity
1914 Mistake in the fifth proof of E = mc2
1915 Mistake in the Einstein-de Haas experiment
1915 Mistakes in several attempts at theories of general relativity
1916 Mistake in the interpretation of Mach’s principle
1917 Mistake in the introduction of the cosmological constant (the “biggest blunder”)
1919 Mistakes in two attempts to modify general relativity
1925 Mistakes and more mistakes in the attempts to formulate a unified theory
1927 Mistakes in discussions with Bohr on quantum uncertainties
1933 Mistakes in interpretation of quantum mechanics (Does God play dice?)
1934 Mistake in the sixth proof of E = mc2
1939 Mistake in the interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and gravitational collapse (the “black hole”)
1946 Mistake in the seventh proof of E = mc2
Major Paper Repeats Bogus Einstein Bee Quote
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/einstein-bees
Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a lot of errors in Einstein's math. If he knew the answer already, did he get it from someone else and then fake the calculations?
Einstein's 23 Biggest Mistakes | Einstein | DISCOVER Magazine
1905 Mistake in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity
1905 Failure to consider Michelson-Morley experiment
1905 Mistake in transverse mass of high-speed particles
1905 Multiple mistakes in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of liquids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules
1905 Mistakes in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light
1905 Mistake in the first proof of E = mc2
1906 Mistakes in the second, third, and fourth proofs of E = mc2
1907 Mistake in the synchronization procedure for accelerated clocks
1907 Mistakes in the Principle of Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration
1911 Mistake in the first calculation of the bending of light
1913 Mistake in the first attempt at a theory of general relativity
1914 Mistake in the fifth proof of E = mc2
1915 Mistake in the Einstein-de Haas experiment
1915 Mistakes in several attempts at theories of general relativity
1916 Mistake in the interpretation of Mach’s principle
1917 Mistake in the introduction of the cosmological constant (the “biggest blunder”)
1919 Mistakes in two attempts to modify general relativity
1925 Mistakes and more mistakes in the attempts to formulate a unified theory
1927 Mistakes in discussions with Bohr on quantum uncertainties
1933 Mistakes in interpretation of quantum mechanics (Does God play dice?)
1934 Mistake in the sixth proof of E = mc2
1939 Mistake in the interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and gravitational collapse (the “black hole”)
1946 Mistake in the seventh proof of E = mc2
Major Paper Repeats Bogus Einstein Bee Quote
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/einstein-bees
How many peer-reviewed published scientific papers do you have? Do you understand the value of "mistake" in science, and how it eventually gets corrected by the scientific community? Do you actually know how science works? Why do you put Einstein on a pedestal, only to knock him off it again?
My rough guess is that the answers are:
none, no, no, because I have no ideas of my own.
My rough guess is that the answers are:
none, no, no, because I have no ideas of my own.
Like your prophet, I was a patent examiner.
http://www.deism.com/einstein.htm
http://sciliterature.50webs.com/4shared.htm
http://www.deism.com/einstein.htm
http://sciliterature.50webs.com/4shared.htm
Last edited:
You must be confusing me with someone else. My generally positive view of Einstein's ideas should not be considered to be some sort of exact opposite of your negative view. The only issue is whether what he said is true, not the fact that he said it. Non-scientists often get confused on this point, as they are used to establishing 'facts' by quoting 'authorities'; in science the only 'authority' is the universe itself.
Since apparently no one decided to test the predictions the numbers drawn for the $70,000,000.00 jackpot:
11, 14, 49, 55, 58, 30
So I guess the magic number website doesn't work. What a disappointment! 🙂
Glad I only used the free trial.
I assume most folks here know how this email scam works. They email different numbers to everyone they can reach. Then they follow up with anyone they by chance sent the winning numbers to and offer to sell them the next set, for a large fee. After all they have a track record!
Well (to quote a gambler friend of mine) you only missed the first two by 4 and 3...surely that proves you are a lucky person!
Dmitri Mendeleev claimed that he saw Periodic Table of Elements in the night-dream.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
So you accept that the formula is correct, that matter can be converted into energy and vice-versa, you just want to argue about who first thought of it? Fine, if that interests you. That is history, not science.
What is known is that we can go slower than the speed of light, which means light cannot go as slow as us, ... do we all then have an advantage ? 😀
Cheers / Chris
Cheers / Chris
Light can be slowed, even stopped. "C" is the upper limit. Not an absolute. I thought we went there.
Thanks, I read about it here:
Harvard Gazette: Researchers now able to stop, restart light
however achieved in circumstances that rely on extreme cold and extreme pressure.
These conditions are created in a experimental environment, then shaped for humans with the abilities we have to observe it, Maybe light can and does appear different to other organisms.?
Cheers / Chris
c is the speed of light in a vacuum. It could also be argued that it is the speed of any individual photon, and any other massless particle. In a medium light can travel more slowly, by interacting with the medium; photons are absorbed and re-emitted. The net speed slows.
It might be better to say that c is the speed which appears in the Lorentz transformation. From that you can show that it is the speed of any massless particle, of which the photon is merely one example. It is also the limiting speed of any massive particle.
It might be better to say that c is the speed which appears in the Lorentz transformation. From that you can show that it is the speed of any massless particle, of which the photon is merely one example. It is also the limiting speed of any massive particle.
Yup. But then again, DF is the actual physicist here.
What I find funny is that weeks after the original neutrino experimenters found their error, two different labs were still confirming the first had made a mistake. I would have thought that once it was confirmed neutrinos did not do what was unexpected, everyone would have gone back to other investigations. I guess funding does not work that way.
What I find funny is that weeks after the original neutrino experimenters found their error, two different labs were still confirming the first had made a mistake. I would have thought that once it was confirmed neutrinos did not do what was unexpected, everyone would have gone back to other investigations. I guess funding does not work that way.
The new negative result needs to be confirmed, just in case it is wrong! Confirmation also reduces the risk of an accusation that they just fiddled with their calculations until the result looked correct. We are not talking about some blindingly obvious simple mistake which has now been found, but a difficult and precise set of corrections to the raw data. Even when you have found a mistake which makes the result what you expect, there is always a small chance that another correction could send you off in another direction again.
Scientists do try quite hard to prove themselves wrong, especially in elementary particle physics. This is absolutely essential.
Scientists do try quite hard to prove themselves wrong, especially in elementary particle physics. This is absolutely essential.
I thought the mistake was a poor connection in the clock feed. Simple and obvious and they confirmed the error was right in line with the too fast measurement. I guess the reporting was not telling everything. Was it just last year when Hawking had a big announcement about being wrong about being wrong? He does tend to stir things up.
Tell me, I thought I read there was a upper limit for frequency. It was governed by the speed of light and the dimension of a particle, that would make sense but only for a particle with dimensions. You see, I have this totally uninformed suspicion that everything we observe are only oscillations. Particles are just an observable manifestation. ( not a theory, a theory needs a lot more informed view). For this to work, we would need frequencies above what was suggested as a limit. E=MC sq because there is only energy in the first place. "Converting" mass to energy is more like hetrodyning, or down converting.
I have a few other problem ideas. One is that time is a dimension and it is unidirectional. It makes sense and solves some problems. The problem is I have observed precognition. That implies predetermination, or at least a set set of predeterminations which I can't quite accept.
Tell me, I thought I read there was a upper limit for frequency. It was governed by the speed of light and the dimension of a particle, that would make sense but only for a particle with dimensions. You see, I have this totally uninformed suspicion that everything we observe are only oscillations. Particles are just an observable manifestation. ( not a theory, a theory needs a lot more informed view). For this to work, we would need frequencies above what was suggested as a limit. E=MC sq because there is only energy in the first place. "Converting" mass to energy is more like hetrodyning, or down converting.
I have a few other problem ideas. One is that time is a dimension and it is unidirectional. It makes sense and solves some problems. The problem is I have observed precognition. That implies predetermination, or at least a set set of predeterminations which I can't quite accept.
The poor connection was obvious once they found it, but I think calculating the effect it had on the experiment was non-trivial.
Of dear. I think I know where this comes from . . . and where it's going.
We also did not land on he moon, the Mexicans are planning an invasion of Texas etc etc.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.